Well I just got through answering your earlier post, but it's always so nice to get posts from you with your gracious polite style it should be a pleasure to have to deal with yet another:
OK, if the definition is already established I will have to be clearer about what I mean. It's surprising to me of course since the whole point of my argument is that reconstructing the prehistoric past can only be interpretive, ...
First, I'd like to know what is intrinsically wrong with interpretation.
Nothing at all, it's essential. With respect to the prehistoric past, however, it's ALL you've got, no way to verify it. And that's all a Floodist has too as I've said many times. This is a war of plausibilities when it comes to theories about the origin of the rocks and so on, it's not testable science, that's the point. Which needs to be differentiated from the practical situation in the field, which so far clearly doesn't need any of the Old Earth stuff but is instead true observational and testable scientific work.
Then I'd like to know how you arrived at a superior interpretation considering that you have no evidence and not training, while we have worked with the evidence for decades.
Do remember that what I'm questioning is only the Old Earth stuff, not what you do in the field. And of course I question the Old Earth because it contradicts God's word. And from there I've followed some creationist thinking and my own observations to try to come up with a Floodist view of the origins of the rocks. These theories may not be correct, but Old Earthism certainly isn't. The only thing that I KNOW is correct is that there was a worldwide Flood about 4300 years ago. Far as I can tell from what you and petrophysics and Pressie and rox have said, all this pure theory about when and how the rocks formed has NOTHING to do with your expertise in the field.
If you had to face the fact that the Flood was the cause, it shouldn't alter anything you actually do in the field, just some of your mental categories about some of it.
... such things as their supposed deposition hundreds of millions of years ago, the "era" in which they were deposited being characterized by their fossil contents, the supposed extinctions being determined by a thin layer of iridium and the absence of expected fossils above a certain level. All stuff that is pure theory and can never be tested.
Yes, those things would be called 'evidence'. You should try it once in a while.
The thing is, we have the same evidence you have and all that evidence is subject to other interpretations (For instance, like volcanic ash, iridium could have settled out of the atmosphere or floated on the water during the Flood, just for a quick guess, and of course the presence or absence of certain fossils in any given sedimentary rock is just the luck of the draw in the Flood, nothing to do with separate eras in which they supposedly lived). But other interpretations in the field should be much more quickly resolvable, being all about physical facts, such as what the lie of the land in the present can tell you about the potential presence of oil. These are observations that can be verified and tested in the present. But all that theory about how the rocks originally formed cannot be verified or tested and the Flood is a really good alternative explanation for them.
The point here is that the preponderance of evidence supports all of those things that you disagree with; and not that anyone is 'making an interpretation'.
No, the point here is that as long as ALL you have is interpretation and no way to test any of it you can just go on building a web of interpretations that is plausible but could be completely false. Which can't happen in the field where you ARE dealing with testable facts and have to be because you have to be able to find what you are looking for. Old Earthism isn't going to help you there.
If you have a problem with the interpretation of the age of the targets in the Williston Basin, this would be a good time to make it known. Quit making vague assertions about those terrible interpretations and be specific about your complaint.
Have no idea what you are referring to, sorry.
As for erosion and deformation and all that, a great deal of it is visible in the present and the interpretations are subject to others' observations. Petrophysics' descriptions of the rocks he is studying should certainly be easily enough verifiable by others.
And they are, repeatedly.
Good show, what I would expect of a true observational science.
Then there are core analyses, seismic tests and that sort of thing. All physical determinations done in the present, even if they include interpretations of how a rock got where it is, which is literally "historical" but not about the prehistoric past where there is no way to test anything.
Actually, there is. We compare well data all the time. And ultimately, the proof is in the results.
Well, if you are just going to assert such things without explanation that's hardly any proof that Old Earthism is useful. No reason wells should show actual age as opposed to relative age. You love to be as cryptic as possible and all I can do is roll my eyes and shrug it off when you do that.
All of which should be reasonably categorized as observational science IMHO and all that.
I think you will find that the world is way ahead of you on this.
I would hope so, but EvC doesn't seem to be able to sort it out.
In any case everything petrophysics described is testable science, and he mentions nothing at all about a rock's age in supposed millions of years, so I'm still waiting for somebody to show me that those specific ancient ages matter at all in the finding of oil or anything else -- as opposed to knowing that one rock was deposited before another, or their relative age.
I have mentioned this several times. They are important where there are no cross-cutting or stratigraphic relationships. this would often involve igneous rocks. It is also of necessity in Precambrian rocks.
This is not clear. "They" are important? What is important? Actual age or relative age? And again you are being awfully cryptic with that "no cross=cutting or stratigraphic relationships." I conclude you really don't want to communicate anything or prove anything. Perhaps you are too busy, that's understandable, but mentioning it, asserting it, is not proving it. If I can't understand what you are saying it's as good as if you hadn't said anything.
It was asserted a long time ago here, by you among others I believe, and now by edge, that the actual age of a rock does matter in some cases, having to do with working out temperatures that can be important in finding oil.
That was one specific example related to the oil and gas business. the thermal history of a basin and its source rocks might be very important in determining the best location for an oil reservoir.
Well, there you are saying it again, without demonstrating or evidencing it. What's to say that a relative thermal history based on relative age isn't sufficient for this purpose? (Since I'd guess there's really no way to know anything about actual temperatures in actual time frames anyway.)
In the large, well-known fields that have been drilled for a hundred years, you hardly have to know the names of the formations to drill successfully. But that doesn't support your notion regarding absolute ages.
Sorry, have no idea what your point is here.
And overall I'm afraid nothing in this post clearly demonstrates a need for Old Earthist time frames for anything having to do with the practicalities of locating oil.
™ Version 4.2
(1)